SAJEEV.P.R v. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
Accordingly, the writpetition is dismissed without prejudice to the contentions of thepetitioner and his rights to move other appropriate forums
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 55. The dispute involved in this case is between the husband and wife. Having regard to the disputed facts, we feel that it is not proper for us to ask the police to interfere in this matter in favour of one side or the other.…
Judgment
K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.C. HARI RANI,JJ==============================W.P.(C)NO. 32994 OF 2008============================DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2008JUDGMENTBalakrishnan Nair,J.The petitioner submits, he is running a Gent's BeautyParlour by name “Spa Beauty Parlour” at Vaikom. Ext.P1 is the lease deed, on the strength of which he took the premises on rent for housing the said parlour. The 4th respondent is his wife. They are living separately for the last four years. They were jointly running a beauty parlour earlier. Since the petitioner was driven out from his matrimonial home and they were living separately, he was constrained to start the present business, itis submitted. But the 4th respondent came along with her supporters and caused obstruction to the functioning of the present saloon. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferredExt.P2 representation seeking necessary protection. Ext.P2 was followed by Exts.P3, P4 and P5 representations before WPC.32994/2008-2-respondents 1 to 3. Alleging inaction from the part of the police to extend necessary protection, this writ petition is filed seeking appropriate reliefs.
The 4th respondent has filed a counter affidavit stating that the present business is also a joint venture of the petitioner and the 4th respondent. When the new business was started, the petitioner cleverly executed the lease agreement in his name and also got the D & O licence. The fund was raised for running the said business by pledging a property jointly owned by them in the State Bank of Travancore, Vaikom. Since the petitioner failed to pay the amount due to the Bank, it has issued Ext.R4(B)proceedings under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of SecurityInterest Act, 2002 to take over the mortgaged property and sell it in public auction. She has produced Ext.R4(A) D & O licence issued by the Municipality for the beauty parlour for the year2004-05. It was in the name of the said respondent. The 4threspondent has also moved the Judicial First Class MagistrateCourt, Vaikom under Section 12(1) of the Protection of Womenfrom Domestic Violence Act, 2005 seeking appropriate reliefs. In WPC.32994/2008-3-fact, it is the petitioner who is manhandling her and she requires protection, it is submitted.
The petitioner has filed a reply affidavit denying all theaverments of the 4th respondent. According to him, since the 4threspondent has failed to run the beauty parlour from which he was driven out, the amount due to the Bank fell in arrears. Thefund for the present beauty parlour is raised by himself. It was started as early as in 2006 as evident from Ext.P1, it is submitted.
The learned Government Pleader, upon instructions, submitted that several representations were received from the petitioner and the 4th respondent. So, both parties were summoned to the police station and conciliatory efforts were made to unite them. But the efforts of the police failed and the parties were advised to approach the competent forum tore dress their respective grievances.
Operative part
The dispute involved in this case is between the husband and wife. Having regard to the disputed facts, we feel that it is not proper for us to ask the police to interfere in this matter in favour of one side or the other. The dispute will have to be WPC.32994/2008-4-settled by the appropriate forum. But the police station is not the appropriate forum to settle the dispute. The petitioner has to work out his remedies elsewhere. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed without prejudice to the contentions of the petitioner and his rights to move other appropriate forums. Thisjudgment will not affect the powers of the police to take any action in accordance with law, if any cognizable offence is reported. K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR,JUDGEM.C. HARI RANI,JUDGEks. WPC.32994/2008-5-
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Accordingly, the writpetition is dismissed without prejudice to the contentions of thepetitioner and his rights to move other appropriate forums
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Securitisation andReconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of SecurityInterest Act, 2002 — s. 13(2); Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Kerala High Court, on 20 Nov 2008. The bench was M C HARI RANI.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.